Judicial Exceptions to the Free Provision of Services

Abstract: Recent case-law of the Court of Justice on general interest exceptions to the free provision of services has indicated a flexible approach to general interest exceptions involving moral or ethical issues. In contrast, where the general interest exception is relied on in a case which demonstrates predominantly economic issues, it is subject to strict scrutiny, in particular, with reference to the principle of proportionality. The article analyses the Court's case-law and tries to deduce the criteria which now govern the Court's position. It also highlights difficulties which this two-tier approach may excite. The position of the Court of Justice reflects the lack of homogeneous European ethical and moral standards, but it also underlines the predominantly economic character of European integration to date. It is submitted, nevertheless, that divorcing the economic criteria for integration from general ethical considerations will prove an extremely difficult, if not fruitless, task.     

Scientific and legal standards of statistical evidence in toxic tort and discrimination suits

Many legal disputes turn on scientific, especially statistical, evidence. Traditionally scientists have accepted only that statistical evidence which satisfies a 95 percent (or 99 percent) rule — that is, only evidence which has less than five percent (or one percent) probability of resulting from chance.The rationale for this rule is the reluctance of scientists to accept anything less than the best-supported new knowledge. The rule reflects the internal needs of scientific practice. However, when uncritically adopted as a rule for admitting legal evidence, the seemingly innocuous 95 percent rule distorts the balance of interests historically protected by the legal system. In particular, plaintiffs in toxic tort and employment discrimination suits are effectively held to a heavier burden of proof in showing that their injuries were more probably than not caused by the defendant's actions. The result is that too many victims of toxic torts or employment discrimination cannot win legal redress for their injuries.Proposals to adopt stringent scientific rules of evidence thus implicate significant philosophical issues about the relation of evidence to belief and to practical action. The underlying objectives of the tort law system are not those of scientific practice, and each set of objectives has standards of evidence specific to it.Previous versions of this paper were read at the UCLA Law and Philosophy Discussion Group and at the Orange County Moral and Political Philosophy Discussion Group. We have benefitted from comments by Steve Munzer, Peter Aranella, Craig Ihara, Gary Watson, David Estlund, and Alex Rosenberg. A longer version of this paper is in preparation. In that paper we hope to develop some of the items merely sketched in this paper.     

Family violence as a determinant factor in juvenile maladjustment.

The family is one of the major socialization agencies for children. Parents are one of the most important models from whom the child and adolescent acquire a wide variety of behavior patterns, attitudes, values, and norms. The aim of this study was to determine the importance of factors related to family conflicts in the genesis of social maladjustment. A total of 189 young people (110 boys and 79 girls) from training schools connected with the juvenile court in Murcia (Spain) were studied. The subjects' ages ranged from 11 to 18 years (mean 13.51, SD 0.16). Our sample comprised a group of minors who experienced a high incidence of intrafamilial pathology, which was found to be a significant discriminant factor. Aggressive behavior, rules, norms, values, opinions, and attitudes toward aggressivity can be learned in the family setting.